User talk:Constant314

Active discussions

Welcome...

Hello, Constant314, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know I had a user page until today. Thanks for the greeting and I apologize for it taking so long.

Adding References to Articles

 This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have added references to a few articles that had no references. It has been a few months, but the articles ares still flagged as having no references. How do I get that changed?70.123.153.103 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are sure that a warning notice is redundant, you can remove it yourself by editing the article in the normal way. Right at the top you will find something like "{{Unreferenced|date=somedate}}" or perhaps "{{Multiple issues| ... Unreferenced=somedate ... }}". Be sure to fill in the edit summary clearly, something like "Removing the unreferenced tag because there are now 8 references", so that other editors know what you are doing. Do not mark the edit as "minor" -- John of Reading (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Constant314 (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Toroidal inductors and transformers

I added to Talk:Toroidal inductors and transformers. Your pix would be good in Rogowski coil. Thanks for your efforts. Glrx (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know your pix are public domain. I pointing you to an interesting topic and offering you the edits. Glrx (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, but I don't know anything about Rogowski coils.

I read some of your page, most of it is books and thought these internet links might be useful, this one has some pictures.[1]. This one has some more diagrams.[2] The rest are a bit complicated to explain.[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. This is a good one,[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]. Im not sure if you got this one already.[16]. Thats all I can find at the minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.1.33.76 (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

 Stubs Relief well Common drain Houston Gay Pride Parade Health physics Macondo Laplacian vector field Stripline Forward echo Single-sideband suppressed-carrier transmission Retarded potential Radiobiology Unbalanced line High impedance Mechanical wave Velocity potential Interface conditions for electromagnetic fields Output impedance Lumped element model Four-gradient Cleanup Transmission coefficient Focused Impedance Measurement Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Merge DC bias Functional derivative Free space Add Sources Adder (electronics) Solid-fuel rocket Dipole antenna Wikify Inverse-square law Test probe Energy efficient transformer Expand Inductor Attenuator (electronics) RL circuit

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting help on misspelled file names

 This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I recently uploaded numerous files to wikimedia commons and then noticed that I consistantly misspelled one of the words in the names.

Do I have to reload each file again with the correct spelling and then nominate the old files for deletion?

Or is there an easy way to correct the spelling?

And if not, maybe there is an easy way to make a copy of each file with a new name and thhen nominnate the old files for deletion.Constant314 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixing now for you using rename template. -- DQ (t) Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Done now awaiting commons administrator. -- DQ (t) Merry Chrismasand a Happy New Year! 19:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank-you very much. How long does it usually take for the renaming process to complete?Constant314 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist etc

Re your question, I use a the watchlist (click "my watchlist" top right corner of screen) and have my preferences set to add any page I edit. See Help:watching pages for more information. You can also set up an RSS feed for selected pages - see Wikipedia:Syndication.

Redlinks arise when a wikilink is made to a page that does not exist. If you copied an existing table with links to the units and then changed the units, that would explain the redlinks. You named units that do not have a page.

Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 14:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that helps, thank you.Constant314 (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

Just been looking over your recent work in attenuator (electronics). This is good stuff, but I have a couple of comments. Firstly, most of the component calculation information is probably better off in the individual articles for specific attenuator circuits. Indeed, there seems to be some duplication. You could put a summary in the attenuator article and use the {{main}} template to link to the details. Secondly, I would like to draw your attention to the WP:NOTTEXTBOOK policy. Wikipedia is not meant to be a textbook teaching the subject and lengthy formula derivations are getting close to being in breach of this. You might want to consider whether some of your material is more suitable for the sister project Wikibooks. Wikibooks can be linked into a Wikipedia article with the {{Wikibooks}} template. SpinningSpark 12:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you for your comments. I will consider them carefully, but maybe not until tomorrow. Merry Christmas and thanks for the help and advice in the past.Constant314 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Dicklyons solution is workable, but personally, I like to see the details of specific circuits in their own articles. The general article is less hard going for the reader that way. Another possible approach is to write the common material in the template namespace and then transclude it into both articles. This would solve your problem of maintainability since any change will automatically be reflected in both articles. If you go down this path, make sure the first line of the template is a heading as this will make for easy editing of the section. SpinningSpark 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good. Can you point me to an example?Constant314 (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
If you take a look at Talk:Aboriginal Memorial you will see that there is a GA review going on. The review can be seen on the talk page, but is actually on a different page, Talk:Aboriginal Memorial/GA1. If you look at the talk page in edit mode you will see that the review page is transcluded on to it by writing the page between double curly braces like so {{Talk:Aboriginal Memorial/GA1}}. Note that the review can be edited as if it were a section of the talk page because it begins with a heading. In the article space, pages which are to be transcluded in are placed in the "template" namespace. In those cases the namespace "template" can be omitted as "template will be assumed if nothing is specified, see for instance Heartbreak Hotel which has a list of {{Elvis Presley singles}} at the bottom of the article which also appears in many other articles. SpinningSpark 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I understand that. Is the page to be transcluded just an ordinary page? Constant314 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, any page can be transcluded on to any other page, but it is the convention to put the page to be transcluded in the template namespace rather than the main namespace because the latter is reserved only for self-contained articles, not fragments. SpinningSpark 16:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

image on user page

I assume you did not want this to happen. Feel free to revert if I am wrong. SpinningSpark 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

thanksConstant314 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Transit

I've been doing some research on Transit tracking stations, and I was wondering if you knew anything about the other installations. I assume that 019 is atypical, since it is in Antarctica, but have you seen what any of the others look like? I assume that they all have similar antenna installations and would be readily recognizable. If you think you might be able to help me with some information on Station 002, can you leave me a message on my talk page? Thanks. ℱorƬheℒoveofℬacon 04:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)   Hello. You have a new message at Fortheloveofbacon's talk page.   Hello. You have a new message at Fortheloveofbacon's talk page.

File:Magnetic Vector Potential Circular Toroid (now in svg format)

png form.

I was recently editing Talk:Magnetic potential , and ran into your original and excellent image! If its ok - I redrew it in SVG form, I like your originality so kept all the colours and everything (except maybe some shading for the toroidal core, as I couldn't quite get it to work, maybe I can edit this with inkscape later, sorry)...

It has replaced the jpeg version in the article, and also noted on the talk page of that article. Thanks, =) 20:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

thanksConstant314 (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
One point - I didn't just edit the talk page of magnetic potential, but the article also (not sure why you changed the link back but it doesn't really matter...).
You have a user page of ~ 78kB. To significantly reduce the byte count and allow the page to load up quicker, for all the fab images you created/uploaded, you could create subpages for each section of them, say
User:Constant314/Two Ports images containing the section User:Constant314#Two Ports images,
User:Constant314/Torroidal Inductor/Transfotmer and Magnetic Vector Potential images containing the section User:Constant314#Torroidal Inductor/Transfotmer and Magnetic Vector Potential images,
User:Constant314/Toroidal Transformer Presentation images containing the section User:Constant314#Toroidal Transformer Presentation images,
etc (to name a few), and then under the sections on your user page, you just insert the subpages like a template (subpage name in curly brackets), say
{{User:Constant314/Two Ports images}},
{{User:Constant314/Torroidal Inductor/Transfotmer and Magnetic Vector Potential images}},
{{User:Constant314/Toroidal Transformer Presentation images}}, etc...
(though correct the spelling errors first to prevent page-moving things after). It may also help reduce vandalism, since editors coming to your main page will not be able to edit the contents of the subpages because they are elsewhere. Thanks again for the good work. 13:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I did not do anything. Perhaps someone else changed it back? It turns out that I cannot read and display *.svg files so I guess I am glad it changed back.Constant314 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It's evident from this edit that you did. Again - its not important, lets forget it please. 21:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It is important because I have no idea how it happened.Constant314 (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Electrical engineering! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of all electrical engineering related articles.

We are just starting, so there are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; feel free to participate as much or as little as you like:

You can use Outline of electrical engineering or Index of electrical engineering articles as a starting point.

• If you want to know how good our articles are? Have a look at our assessment department.
• If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any fellow member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you.

Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

SchreyP (messages) 08:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minor loop feedback, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phase (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Private communication

 This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Is there a way to communicate privately with an editor.Constant314 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Many users have email enabled. Check in the menu (in Vector skin it's on the left) and look for the Toolbox. If the user you wish to contact has email enabled, there will be a link "E-mail this user" in that menu. -- Dianna (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Constant314 (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you have made a very long reply to Kevin aylward at Talk:Transformer. I don't know if you were aware, but I blocked him earlier today for edit warring so he won't be replying to you any time soon unless he chooses to repent. I have taken issue with you on one of your comments, but I am avoiding expressing an opinion in the debate in general as this would compromise my position acting as an administrator as I would no longer be uninvolved in the dispute. SpinningSpark 18:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no arguement with your comment; I'm still learning the rules. I understand that if something were absolutely wrong that it should be removed, even if a majority of the editors believed it correct. But please elaborate, if something were absolutely wrong, yet a majority of the editors believed it to be true, who would decide?Constant314 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
In ideal cases, with editors that are behaving collaboratively, and not editing from some pre-conceived POV, there is no reason that content disputes should not be settled by examining sources. For protracted cases amongst good faith editors there are a number of dispute resolution processes available. In non-ideal cases where dispute resolution has failed and there is an issue with editor behaviour that cannot be dealt with by administrator action, it might ultimately end up at ArbCom although you don't want to go there unless you actually like interminable psuedo-legal proceedings. There is no ultimate authority for settling content disputes, the whole thing basically relies on maintaining a collegial atmosphere (and removing those editors who won't play by those rules). SpinningSpark 19:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I will respond to your comments on the talk page of that article. I hope to paraphrase my understanding of your explanation.Constant314 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thermistor - HP200A

<moved to Talk: HP200A>Constant314 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Numbering equations

 This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have a question about numbering equations. This is normally done in text books so that you can easily refer to a particular equation, yet it does not seem to be the style for Wikipedia pages to have equations numbered. So my questions are: 1. Is numbering of equations undesirable? 2. Is there a preferred way to number equations? 3. Is there an article that uses numbered equations that illustrates the practice? Thanks in advance to anyone who answers my questions.Constant314 (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

An interesting question, which I thought would be easy to answer. First, I looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics; drawing blank there, I went to WP:WikiProject Mathematics and picked a few featured articles and good articles from the list on their page, to try to find examples of equation numbering. No luck. I will leave the "helpme" in case some one else can answer; also, I will post a note on the WikiProject's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know of an article that uses numbered equations, but the templates {{EquationNote}} and {{EquationRef}} can be used for that purpose. You may want to ask at WT:WikiProject Mathematics on whether equations should be numbered - personally I'd try to avoid numbered equations if at all possible. Huon (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
There's also {{NumBlk}} which lets you layout a line containing a formula and number. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
To see this all in action, take a look at Poisson summation formula.--LutzL (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Equation numbering is described in Help:Formula#Equation numbering. --Mark viking (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that—with the new MathJax—anyhting appearing outside the math tags will destroy the new formula centering feature. That means that (unless the numbering is done in the math itself) numbered equations will remain left justified with the number on the far right, whereas unnumbered equations will get centered. See indeed Poisson summation formula. Ugly. - DVdm (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Indentation, numbering or equation bullets: In many cases, an equation is merely indented by a lead colon ":" (or two "::"), while numbered equations would imply an expectation of mentioning the equation numbers in other text. Unfortunately, the math-tag text is often heavy, dark, bolded text and looks "unprofesssional" for extra numbering/wording, such as "where x is the angle of incidence" or similar. For numbering, I would recommend simply placing an indented plain-text number ":1.&nbsp;" in front of the math-tag for equations which will be mentioned in the text. Lists of equations should generally use asterisk bullets (":*") to allow some to wrap as two math-tags on two lines. However, beware how the math pages are the most difficult to update, often reverted with bickering or complaints by other editors, and hence, the math pages are some of the most backward, cryptic, or awkward of all WP articles, with excessive technical structure and too little explanation of the related concepts for general readers. Those pages also tend to "dog-pile" tangent topics as crammed into over-large pages with excessive obtuse abstract wording, rather than move the related tangent topics into smaller concise subpages as often done with mainstream topics. If you are a teacher or have a degree in mathematics, as I do, then I suggest working on math pages at Simple English Wikipedia, to clarify concepts for general users, and then if someone complains why the WP math pages are so convoluted, unkempt or confusing, then direct them to read about a clarified topic at Simple WP instead. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. If anyone has more comments please continue to post them.Constant314 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Protocol for Replacing an Image

 This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

A long time ago I created the drawing file Magnetic Vector Potential Circular Toroid.jpg. This was before I knew that other formats were preferred. Another editor redrew the file an posted it as an svg file and changed some of the usages to the svg file. However, he was unable to render certain details so I recreated the image as a png file. I am unable to generate svg files. I have changed all the uses of the jpg and svg files over to the png file. I have requested deletion of my own jpg file so that it won't get accidently used again. I would also like to insure that the svg file does not get used again because it is missing certain details and I cannot maintain it or improve it. So, my question is: is it legitimate to ask for the deletion of another person's file if that file has been superseded?Constant314 (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is more of a Commons question than one about Wikipedia, and you have already nominated the image for deletion over at the Commons. Deleting outdated versions of images seems legitimate to me, but I'm no expert on preferred file types. Have you tried asking F=q(E+v^B), the creator of the .svg, to improve his version? Huon (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yes I did leave a request on F=q(E+v^B) commons page but since then I found that his Wikipedia page redirects to User talk:Z = z² + c which has a huge banner at the top that says he/she has terminated his/her activities and permission is granted to revert any and everything he/she every contributed. So I went ahead with the deletion request.Constant314 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Energy sucking antennas

Nope, wasn't me. My professional life was spent mostly in the "welding industry", specifically designing control systems and power supplies for plasma-cutting torches, the differences being, for plasma cutting, dangerously-high open circuit voltages (300-400 volts), higher powers (up to 100's of KW), and the use of high-voltage, high-freq (e.g. 3 MHz), high-powered spark-gap oscillators to emit pulses that arc-and-spark (start) the torches -- the resulting EMI is beyond belief, so I have a lot of experience "hardening" electronics against EMI. That's about as close to "energy sucking antennas" as I've come. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the reply.Constant314 (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Magnetic vector potential

I'm not familiar with this notion, but perhaps the following reference will help. (I see what you mean about the cost of these books! But we're in luck . . ..) Many years ago I bought a book called "The J & P Transformer Book" by Martin Heathcote, first published in 1925 and now in its 13th or so edition. This book belonged to and stayed with the company where I worked, but marvel of marvels it's gone into the public domain, all 950+ pages of it, and I was able to download all of the 12th edition (if you google "J & P Transformer Book" you'll find this as the second result):

In the first chapter you'll see quite-complicated, thorough phasor diagrams (these have flux and voltage and currents etc all on the same diagram). The pdf version is a bit marred by poor resolution of these drawings (most seem adequate), but check out Appendix 7 "The use of finite element analysis in the calculation of leakage flux and dielectric stress distributions" where you'll find some really fancy math and physics . . . div and curl and all that good stuff. Ditto for some of the other Appendices.

Is this the sort of thing you're after? I hope this helps . . . Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Electric potential

The clause you removed is adequately covered at the top, where it is explained that the point charge must be divided out. It's perfectly reasonable to remove it from the general statement in the introduction, so I left it as you edited it. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Frequency divider

I am in the process of splitting the overpopulated Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images by changing diagram requests to more specific tags. I was not the original requester of a diagram on that page; just doing some gnome-type organization. I would ask the original requester, or if you are confident no additional diagrams are needed, remove the tag. Cheers! Swpbtalk 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Meacham by Jim Williams on Wien Osc page

An oscillator config is in the filter part an not in the faithful copy of a thermoionic work with necessarily a lamp as a regulator

Let's see...

A ground referred negating 2 OP Amp based DC coupled with an LDR regulating element is still a Wien Osc even if it shares only the reactive network with Hewlett's thesis became HP 200

A Wien even if it has no tubes even if it has no plate impedance adapting transformer even if it has no lamp as a PTC thermistor but a more precise and a less distorting LDR with a zener-precise voltage output

And Williams' is a true Meacham because the quarz is a filter with a series resitance that needs to be compensated to reach Barkhausen point with a positive variable feedback

If You will undo Yr deletion You will have a better figure:

An encclopedia is not based on showing muscle force like some moderators in Italian Wiki,but on sharing culture

-

Thank You

Gianni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.250.3 (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Good day Gianni,

Thanks for taking time to contact me. I am always pleased to discuss and collaborate.

You are of course correct that a Wein bridge oscillator is a Wein bridge oscillator even if it is implemented with solid state amplifiers instead of tubes and an LDR instead of a lamp. It is a Wein bridge oscillator because it has a Wein bridge.

On the other hand, we would not call it Hewlett’s Oscillator because Hewlett used tubes and a lamp. When I look at the schematic in the LT application note, I find that there are too many differences from Meacham’s design to call it Meacham’s oscillator. About the only thing in common with Meacham’s circuit is that there is a resonator in a bridge. In particular, Meacham’s resonator was in the negative feedback branch of the oscillator and functioned so to minimize negative feedback at the oscillation frequency where the LT oscillator has the resonator in the positive feedback branch and it maximizes positive feedback at the oscillation frequency. Meacham’s gain control was in the positive feedback branch and operated to decrease positive feedback when the amplitude increases. The LT circuit has the gain control in the negative feedback loop and operates to increase negative feedback when the amplitude decreases. Finally Meacham used tuned transformers. These have circuit implications that are not present in the LT oscillator. For all these reasons, I find the fine circuit described in the LT document to be so far removed from Meacham’s design that it provides no useful insight the Meacham’s circuit. If the article was about bridged based oscillators then it might be a good fit. But this article is about Wein bridge oscillators and their history. Meacham’s original circuit is of interest because it predated and contributed to Hewlett’s design for a Wein bridge oscillator.

You may have noticed that Glrx has been working extensively on this article. If he agrees that the link is appropriate then I will not oppose it. Constant314 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Capacitive coupling

As a specialist of non-radiative near-fields (especially capacitive ones), I planned to add here the general frame for capacitive coupling Qi=CijVj With Cij the capacitive matrix with self-capacitances (diagonal terms) and mutual capacitances (Off-diagonal terms), derived a century ago and available on most books dealing with electrostatics. This work could lead to the introduction in the electric network frame of the capacitive coupling in the same footing as inductive coupling is (see https://www.dropbox.com/sh/765ig8ksoqo0934/AAD54qcUgl6BvV3ralooQfvaa?dl=0 ). The well known coupling coefficient ${\displaystyle k={\frac {Cm}{\sqrt {C1C2}}}.}$  might be introduced in the same way, again many text book ref available and already present in Coupling_coefficient_of_resonators(albeit not in the simplest form ). However the basic schematic (two capacitors linked by a curved arrow to figure the coupling), although well known, is not present in most books (to my knowledge) but PI-models are (as well as T-models for inductive coupling). According to most specialists, this basic representation is a remarkably clear way to introduce both coupling in their general forms. I think they deserved to be presented as open source content in the capacitive coupling page, inductive coupling page as well as in the wireless power page. I will not make the same mistake twice (introducing inappropriately a link related to my own work in a Wiki page), moreover, in this specific case, I do not pretend to be the initiator or the representation (that I started to use in 2004). So what do you think ?.Henri BONDAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Good day Henri. Thanks for contacting me. I see your comments and I will respond, but it may take a little while. I presume that you have added my talk page to your watch list.Constant314 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Good day again. There are several things to discuss. Let’s start with the conflict of interest. I’m not suggesting you have done anything unethical. But you do have a patent and have at least a nominal economic interest in promoting related topics. That does not lock you out totally, but the preferred way to proceed is to is to identify your WP:COI on the talk page of the article(s) and then make suggestions on the talk page about things to change or include. That way, it is up to some other editor, with no COI, to decide if it is significant. It is an inefficient and probably frustrating way to proceed.
You also used your own published work as a reference in the Pointing vector article. This is not entirely prohibited, but the reference is more carefully scrutinized. It can stay, if it appears in a reliable secondary source such as an academic journal with a formal peer review process. An example, would be the Proceedings of the IEEE. The articles are mostly original work but they are vetted though a formal editorial process that includes peer review. I have done this myself, but first I discussed it with an Admin who looked into the particular publication and concluded that it met the requirements of a reliable secondary source. But, even if you do that, you still need to address the COI issues.
Given that you have both WP:COI and WP:OR (own or original research) issues, I would encourage you to stick to your draft article rather than sprinkling the new unappreciated information over several existing articles. Once you get your draft in good shape (there is no hurry), there is a mechanism to request comments from the relevant physics and engineering groups.
Regarding quasi-static, in 99.9+% of the time it means that you can neglect the time it takes for electromagnetic effect to propagate. The general prescription is that the size of the apparatus is small compared to the wavelength in question. I am not saying that quasi-electrostatic and quasi-magnetostatic should not be discussed, but those topics should not be in the first sentence or even in the first paragraph. No matter how useful and insightful they may be, their significance is far below that of the ordinary quasi-static definition. As your own reference says, these subject are not well covered in text books today. That is evidence that the topics are not significant in the Wikipedia sense. Have a look at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have been frustrated myself that my own brilliant insight cannot be included in some articles because a lack of reliable sources.
And finally, on your comments about discussion of mutual and self-capacitances. I do not see anything controversial. In my mind, I see a bunch of spheres floating in space. Each sphere has a coupling or mutual capacitance to each of the other spheres and has its own self capacitance to “ground”. Each sphere would have an absolute charge injected on it and it would have “voltage” with respect to “ground” that would satisfy the equation Q=CV where Q and V are vectors and C is a matrix. I am surprised that it is not already covered on Wikipedia, but it is an obvious extension of the Two-port network article.
Some years ago, a commentator in one of the electronics magazines (probably Electronic Design) made a statement about the capacitance between the Earth and the moon. What he actually computed was the Earth’s self-capacitance in series with the moon’s self-capacitance. He got a letter form “some guys in France” that told him the capacitance was much smaller. They were computing the mutual or coupling capacitance. It was never resolved. Anyway, it does show a misunderstanding of the topic. I would say go ahead on that topic, except that you have COI on the topic. I know that it is frustrating; your deep knowledge about the topic allowed you to receive a patent related to the topic and thus have an economic interest in publicizing the topic. It disqualifies a lot of knowledgeable people from contributing to Wikipedia in their area of competence. But that is the choice Wikipedia has made. It prefers editors with less knowledge but with reliable sources over experts without reliable sources.
So there is a lot for you to consider. I again suggest that you reign in your zeal for sharing the unappreciated information and put your effort into your draft document. Wikipedia is much more accepting of a new article on a subject instead of additions to old stable articles which suggest the article largely or completely misses the point, is wrong, archaic, is inconsistent with new revelations or modern developments, etc. Constant314 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your precious comments. Most contributors use a pseudo and it can help to some extent I guess. What was really frustrating was to see my contributions in Wireless Power domain presented in an awkward manner with inappropriate, sources, terms and interpretation. But the situation is much more balanced now (except for some general considerations I am now discussing in talk pages before modifications, as you suggest). Besides, my contributions are limited to a few topics (mainly quasi-electrostatics and ElectroHydroDynamics). The main aspect of my work is to restore a kind of balance between capacitive coupling and inductive coupling that are dual in the EM frame, and to fight again dogmatism such as the dominant wavelike interpretation of Maxwell equations (such as evanescent waves, magic effect of resonance.....) so I am more a teacher than an engineer. I have also a didactic website, and a youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCmZ6qsHrUmPlHv50sg5wSQ
I have planned to propose Wikipedia pages for new subjects such as Galilean electromagnetism you already know or more pragmatically the Coupling index kQ introduced a century ago to describe coupled circuits in the electrical network frame and that can help to explains the confusion made between coupling and resonant coupling. Henri BONDAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
For the sharp versus consensus aspect, I think this idea can be explained in the recent Wikipedia poll. Static, consensual, insipid and finally dogmatic or dynamic, up to date and sometimes questionable, pick your choice ! Henri BONDAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I realize that I didn't answer to all your comments. For publishing: journals such as IEEE are saturated with all kinds of inputs with a poor peer reviewed process. So we (I have worked in different teams) have published only a few articles in Journal of Applied Physics, Journal of Electrostatics, and so on, except perhaps our scientific colleagues in Japan that are fighting for applications. I am really worried on the evolution of communication in the scientific world were intelligent knowledge is harder and harder to extract from an exponential noise. So I expect that collaborative works such as Wikipedia can help to sort the knowledge and to organize data in circles according to their use and importance. For capacitive concerns: Yes they are many confusion concerning self and mutual capacitance as well as a general ignorance on the possible use of electrostatic induction (I personally prefer to call it influence to avoid confusion)for WPT transfer. The capacitive matrix is the best way to introduce these topics (see for instance our article here https://www.dropbox.com/sh/765ig8ksoqo0934/AAD54qcUgl6BvV3ralooQfvaa?dl=0), but it is not always used (see my comments on Coupling coefficient of resonators). Thank again for your comments.--Henri BONDAR (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Good day Henri. Its a busy time for me. I will respond later.Constant314 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Constant, I truly loved your quotes to Einstein and Feynmann writings concerning on one side "ether" (or immaterial "substratum" as he later named it), and on the other side the fields seen as "an action at a distance". I am searching for a document I read a few years ago and where a coherent EM formalism was introduced without any reference to fields and propagation but only delayed forces at a distance. Maybe you know where I can find it ? Regards --Henri BONDAR (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you are looking for. Feynman is fairly clear that the E, H, D, ad B fields are computed from the retarded potentials and the retarded potentials are computed from delayed effects of the current and charge densities. Propagation is built into the retarded potentials.Constant314 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Just looking for a web link to a formalism not even based on retarded potentials but on retarded forces. I have seen such an integral (and unpractical) representation of EM but I cannot remember where. It is only to show, in a didactic document not directly related to wikipedia, that the current formalism that introduces the abstract concepts of fields is not the only one possible. As it is aimed for a wide public, I do not wish to introduce the potentials if possible. Maybe something like Jefimenko's equations combined to Lorentz force to remove the fields and obtain a single force at a distance, will do (still too complex for a general public I guess). Anyway don't worry with that. --Henri BONDAR (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It would seem that all you would have to do is plug Jefimenko's expressions for E and B into the equation for electromagnetic force and you would have an expression for force without fields.Constant314 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes this seems OK but it is not a simple link to such a formalism. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me and such a link doesn't exist. Thanks for your help. --Henri BONDAR (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Galilean invariance

Hi Constant314!

I'm urging you to reconsider your deletion of the example of the Earth revolving around the Sun at Galilean invariance.

I believe that your action neglects to take into consideration that the page is dual. It serves to explain both Galilean relativity and Galilean invariance because Wikipedia is lacking the necessary separate articles. Yet invariance is fundamentally (but not practically) incoherent without an understanding of Galilean relativity.

Consider that Galilean relativity, to be defined, implies that a sleeping man is both not moving in his bed and at the same time moving around the Earth and moving around the Sun at different velocities. If these cases are facts, then Galilean relativity is necessarily correct.

Galilean invariance is a related inner Galilean/Newtonian principle of physics. It says that the laws of physics are invariant in each of those three and all other Galilean/Newtonian inertial frames.

In lieu of rewriting the articles, this example needs to stay until it is replaced by something better! ~~ BlueMist (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I would have no problem with a more elaborate example further down in the article. Keep the lede simple. The observer inside the ship moving with a constant velocity who is unaware of his motion gets the same results as an observer on dry land. This would seem to be adequate for Galilean relativity and Galilean invariance. We both know the ship is on the Earth, which is spinning and the Earth is going around the sun and the sun around the galaxy and the galaxy around the local cluster etc. We know that there are no non-accelerated frames available yet there are situations where it is close enough. For the casual reader, we simply invoke the man on dry land and the one inside the ship and we say the ship is moving with a constant velocity; it is easy to imagine. Add an observer on the deck of the ship who is aware of his motion relative to dry land if you like. Motion around the sun invokes the image of circular motion; it takes some justification to say, yes, it is in circular motion, but it is approximately linear motion. It is fine further down, but it is too complicated for the lede.Constant314 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, I've tried. Since you appear to be an engineer, I could give you a simple schematic or mathematical proof in terms of classical mechanics. That would help you to understand the difference between the two ideas, but what good would that do for Wikipedia? ~~ BlueMist (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skin effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Impedance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnetic current, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Antenna and Impedance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Lenz

OK, the first one was too ad-like. I was trying to get close to the primary source, the company that made the thing. I wanted to show that Lenz' law is useful for something other than physics exam problems, for things that ordinary people might find in their house, and see working. Even if you don't like the video, the patent can't be so bad. But I suspect that many will find the patent as boring as their physics books. Gah4 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Checkout WP:LINK. The idea of links is that they should be used very sparingly and only for something that cannot be added to the article. If there was something revealing about Lenz law in the patent, then that information should be added to the article and then the patent would appear as an inline citation, which would also be a link in this case. But, this patent is just for a configuration of an electric motor that has nothing special or unique. There is nothing in the patent that reveals anything about Lenz law that isn't already in the article.
Cheers Constant314 (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is supposed to have something unique to get the patent. At some point, Lenz' law applied to all electromagnetic motors, but this one is just a little more interesting in the way it works, and the way Lenz' law applies. It would take me a little while to figure out how to add it to the article, but that could be done. Gah4 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a patent must have something novel, but the mere existence of a patent is not sufficient in itself to be notable. The patent office is overworked and frequently issues patents that are not actually novel. They let the courts work it out. Also, a lot of patents are just add-ons to other patents. For example, I might get a patent for idea X, a new kind of motor. Someone else may then get a patent for the idea of using my motor as a water pump in a fire truck. That is the way I see this patent. It is a brushless DC motor used for the novel application of spinning a toy top. I do not see any new or unique insight into Lenz law.
But if you want to proceed, I suggest that you start a new topic on the talk page and say what you think is worthy of inclusion in the article and get other editor’s opinions. You may even convince me. :)
Cheers Constant314 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Constant314. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the following formula.

σP = ΦPσM = LPσ/LM
σS = ΦSσ'M = LSσ'/LM

The ratio of inductance is not flux quantity ratio. This description seems to be required to review. I would like to discuss it, so please respond to the above discussion.223.139.66.152 (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Coupling coefficient

Help! SpinningSpark 00:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I can give some background on these equations as found on Leakage inductance#Refined inductive leakage factor
σP = ΦPσM = LPσ/LM ------ (Eq. 3.1)
σS = ΦSσ'M = LSσ'/LM ------ (Eq. 3.2)

153.227.36.195 had pointed out that ΦPσ, ΦM and ΦSσ' are all variables that depend on the terminal conditions during measurement (secondary open, shorted, loaded, whatever), which, I agree, appears to be the case. I contacted Cblambert, the person that originally posted those equations, and asked him to clarify the conditions under which ΦPσ, ΦM and ΦSσ' are measured. Cblambert responded that the equation came from the online version of a very reliable source (which I have no reason to doubt), which is, unfortunately no longer on-line. So, at that point, none of us in the discussion could put eyes on the source or any other source that could clarify the meaning. I don't know what to do in a case like this. The source has been cited, it presumably exists, but the information taken from the source was not sufficiently complete enough to be clear to me, who has designed transformers (but not big power transformers), let alone the average reader. I suggested that the section be moved to the talk page until the symbols were clarified. Cblambert moved it, did a lot of work, added a lot of "see also" links and put it back without actually addressing the problem. I pointed this out 13 Jan and offered a compromise, but there has been no response. I'm not sure that Cblambert agrees that there is anything that needs to be clarified.Constant314 (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, talking (well, writing) out loud. Start with just the primary, possibly on an iron core. We know it satisfies VP=LP dIP/dt, and magnetic flux is proportional (depending on units in use) to current times turns. Now add the secondary. Some flux will go through the secondary, some won't. The secondary voltage is VS=LM dIP/dt (so far, no load). Secondary voltage depends on the change in flux through the secondary and the number of turns. With no load, there is no current in the secondary, and so no flux due to the secondary. For a symmetric transformer, with LP= LS, and LM<LS, I think it is easy to see that that the ratio of flux ΦPM equals LP/LM (note: no σ). But in general, the secondary could have a different number of turns, a different inductance, and the flux ratio is different. Is that what the σ is supposed to do? Other than that, add a load, there will be current in the secondary that generates flux, some of which couples though to the primary. Symmetry rules (and conservation of energy) govern the rules for flux coupling, and restrict LM. That tells me that I don't understand what the σ is for, and without that, the whole question. Gah4 (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. My concern was with the dab page trying to create an entry for a subject that we apparently do not have an article for by differentiating "magnetic coupling coefficient" and "electromagnetic coupling coefficient". Both links seem to me to be describing the same coupling coefficient.
However, I am concerned with your statement that the equations are based on a reliable online source that is not online any more. If it is a printed source then we can, in theory, get hold of a copy. If it was purely online and is not there any more then that is pretty much the definition of not being an RS. Do you have the citation and the original url? SpinningSpark 10:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the document exists in the archive at [17]. I agree that Hameyer is a reliable source. However, this document is his course lecture notes, not a published paper, so the question arises of whether this is a widely accepted way of analysing transformers or just Hameyer's way of teaching the subject. Looking in a large number of book sources seems to suggest the latter. Hameyer introduces a number of new variables I can't find anywhere else, I'm not sure are truly necessary, and I don't remember anything like this from my undergraduate days (possibly I was asleep during that lecture). If this is unique to Hameyer and not followed by anyone else then we shouldn't really be basing the Wikipedia article on it. We should be writing something found more widely. It's not as if we have a limited choice. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of books covering transformers and mutual coupling. SpinningSpark 14:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Without completely examining it, it looks to me like more than lecture notes. Maybe a draft for a book being used as lecture notes. (I have seen that before.) I was once a TA for a professor writing a book, and the notes were the draft for the book, with all the appropriate chapter and section numbering. Gah4 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
For crying out loud Gah4, you don't have to read very far to find that out. The very first sentence says "This Script corresponds to the lecture „Electrical Machines I“ in winter term 2003/2004 at Aachen University". Even if it was a draft for an unpublished book, that is still unpublished, and it doesn't change my point one jot. SpinningSpark 14:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It is dated 2003/2004, so could be a book by now, but the notes are still around. Gah4 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This book: [18] seems to be by the same author, though is dated 1999. I won't spend \$276 to find out. Gah4 (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that that is not the same material, just from the title, but it can be verified on gbooks where snippet view is available, and "numerical modelling" does not occur anywhere in the pdf. There is no doubt that Hameyer has many publications and is well cited, but I still have doubts whether Wikipedia articles should exclusively be following him for notation and approach on WP:NOT grounds. SpinningSpark 18:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem agreeing to phase out Hameyer citations if I can't get a copy of his 2001 course notes. As I say in the Leakage inductance article,
The Refined inductive leakage factor derivation box below, taken verbatim from article, is obtained from basic principles, which happens to agreed with Haymeyer (and with you, Constant314). The onus is on others to disprove this derivation.

Refined inductive leakage factor derivation

a. Per Eq. 2.1 & IEC IEV 131-12-41 inductive coupling factor k is given by

${\displaystyle k=\left|M\right|/{\sqrt {L_{P}L_{S}}}}$  --------------------- (Eq. 2.1)

b. Per Eq. 2.7 & IEC IEV 131-12-42 Inductive leakage factor ${\displaystyle \sigma }$  is given by

${\displaystyle \sigma =1-k^{2}=1-{\frac {M^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}}}}$  ------ (Eq. 2.7) & (Eq. 3.7a)

c. ${\displaystyle {\frac {M^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}}}}$  multiplied by ${\displaystyle {\frac {a^{2}}{a^{2}}}}$  gives

${\displaystyle \sigma =1-{\frac {a^{2}M^{2}}{L_{P}a^{2}L_{S}}}}$  ----------------- (Eq. 3.7b)

d. Per Eq. 2-8 & knowing that ${\displaystyle a^{2}L_{S}=L_{S}^{\prime }}$

${\displaystyle \sigma =1-{\frac {L_{M}^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}^{\prime }}}}$  ---------------------- (Eq. 3.7c)

e. ${\displaystyle {\frac {L_{M}^{2}}{L_{P}L_{S}^{\prime }}}}$  multiplied by ${\displaystyle {\frac {L_{M}.L_{M}}{L_{M}^{2}}}}$  gives

${\displaystyle \sigma =1-{\frac {1}{{\frac {L_{P}}{L_{M}}}.{\frac {L_{S}^{\prime }}{L_{M}}}}}}$  ------------------ (Eq. 3.7d)

f. Per Eq. 2.14, Eq. 3.1, Eq. 3.2, Eq. 3.5 & Eq. 3.6

${\displaystyle \sigma =1-{\frac {1}{(1+\sigma _{P})(1+\sigma _{S})}}}$  --- (Eq.3.7e)

All equations in this article assume steady-state constant-frequency waveform conditions the k & ${\displaystyle \sigma }$  values of which are dimensionless, fixed, finite & positive but less that 1.

Cblambert (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My only objection is that σP and σS are set equal to the ratios of inadequately defined fluxes. Constant314 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you are supposed to be able to separate σP and σS from open circuit and short circuit (both sides) measurements. Not that I yet know how to do it. Gah4 (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
He seems to be written using power electronics terminology. I note the explanation for the complex plane, with the real axis vertical, and the negative imaginary axis to the right. Gah4 (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I am quite convinced that
σP = ΦPσM = LPσ/LM ------ (Eq. 3.1)
is defined with the primary driven and the secondary open circuited while
σS = ΦSσ'M = LSσ'/LM ------ (Eq. 3.2)
is defined with the secondary driven and the primary open circuited. But I can't put that in the article because it would be WP:SYN Constant314 (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

GAR process

GAR process is started. Direct all future GAR process comment in talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Transformer/1Cblambert (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Leakage inductance

I'm currently copyediting this article, reviewing it for reliable sources, and may also reorganize it for composition purposes. I'm mostly relying on others to supply or verify content, because it was not my essay. As a mathematical presentation it falls flat. I've preemptively taken the liberty of suppling undefined salutations for items left well...undefined. Associating a name with some quantity does not define it, for example, a=3.6. So what? But now, a=3.1415926535. Still not necessary to define it? The definition of 'a' is ${\displaystyle \pi }$  and it matters. But even if a=3.6, 'a' has semantics. Similarly for the quantities in the article. We're familiar with the value undefined in mathematical discourse. It's perfectly valid, and indispensable. Sometimes, it's because it cannot be defined; sometimes it's because we do not define it at this point; and sometimes it's because we forgot to define it?? The reason doesn't matter. When it isn't defined, it's undefined as a matter of formalism. This article has a few too many. I can't fill them in, because there's just too many sub- and super-scripted variables with almost indistinguishable semantics floating around.

I would not object to simply deleting any equation which has any undefined items on the right-hand side. The result of computing with any undefined quantity is itself undefined, and cannot be used for any purpose. But if I did that, the article would be gutted. So it must remain as it is, however ugly, until someone fills them in. Maybe you know something about these quantities? Sbalfour (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Let me know when you get finished and I'll have a look. You are doing such a good job of clearing the weeds, I wouldn't want to edit while you are busy.Constant314 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Constant314. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the connection between images and WP:OR.

Regarding your deletion, I don't understand the reference. I thought images are not original research and merely aid the reader to focus on the text? What am I missing? How does this apply?Vinyasi (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You need a reliable source to say that circuit is properly implemented and that it demonstrates the effect. If a manufacturer gives a circuit on a datasheet and you "paraphrase it" (redraw it yourself), that would not be OR and you could cite the manufacturer's data sheet. If your SPICE implementation were obvious enough, we might accept that it is an acceptable representation of the manufacturer's circuit. Your circuit, as drawn, is not obvious on these counts: the action of the source and the switch require expert knowledge of a particular SPICE implementation. For example, is the switch on or off when the voltage is zero? Finally, unfortunately, SPICE lies, especially on the transient analysis. But before we invest a lot of energy in this debate, lets see what others say. Also- Happy New Year! Constant314 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Constant314 Switch is OFF when voltage is measured zero at Vin. Switch is ON when voltage is measured zero at V(1). The exorbitant positive and negative spikes measured at V(1) are the release of back EMF originating at the inductor. Good question. I had to sit and stare at it for a few moments. Thanks for asking. Maybe I should edit the diagram/s by adding text to highlight your concern for vagueness? We can always wait to hear from others.... As for a simulator lying, well, I don't know. I tried the simulation using more strict parsing methods which LTSpice gives the user the option to try out, and I found no variation for both images used in my Decoupling capacitor edit. Vinyasi (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. So it's synthesis on my part. The older, out-of-date NOR[1] said – To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. – I was hoping that anyone can see from this schematic that it might be better not to fight Mother Nature, but accept and enhance back EMF while also trying to discover ways of putting it to good use. Vinyasi (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Transfer function

Hi,

The symbol \omega_i referred not to the i'th pole, it referred to putting in an arbitrary input signal. I do agree that someone might decide to try an input signal that they chose because of being interested in one of the poles, but at this stage of the analysis one has chosen a transfer function with the i'th pole as the only pole and now is trying an *arbitrary* input function. To use the letter i again is analagous to saying "Let i be defined by the rule i = \sum_{i=1}^3 i^2." Or, more like saying "Let x_i be the sum \sum_{i=1}^3 i^2." It is not illegal in the langauge of Math,Physics or engineering, but one should not re-use a bound variable like that. I tried to explain this on the talk page.Createangelos (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll have another look at it. Constant314 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I see your point and unreverted. Since you are looking at it, kindly have a look at all those negative signs and subtractions. I think that some of them should be positive signs. Constant314 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Errors in the "Speed of Electricity" entry

Discussion that should continue on the Speed of Electricity Talk Page
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

Hi Constant314. My apologies if I'm not using "Talk" correctly. I assure you I am trying to come up to speed wrt wiki's ways. Please let me know if I'm doing things incorrectly here.

I'm writing here to point out an error that you made, or at least the error has your name on it. I'm seeing this error today under the "View History" tab for the "Speed of electricity"[1] entry. You responded to my assertion that the section I've isolated is "incorrect and should be removed". You wrote "The section is correct. The references are good and are paraphrased accurately." This is incorrect. The section is incorrect. It would be clear to a good high school physics student that it is incorrect, and in my opinion should be removed entirely until someone comes along to edit this section completely. I was about to try, but given your resistance I now need to wonder if my time will be wasted. Let me explain in short order here ...

There is a sentence in this section here "The speed of electromagnetic waves in a good conductor is given by" after which is an equation solving for the variable υ. Stop right here. That is incorrect and not just in a misleading way. It is egregiously wrong. The equations which follow the equals sign do *not* solve for "The speed of electromagnetic waves in a good conductor". Let me repeat what I've written in my attempt to edit:

"The speeds calculated below are speeds related to charge carrier movement in conductors. This is quite different from the speeds of electromagnetic waves which are always a significant fraction of the speed of light in good conductors. Perhaps the best citation is at top of this very page/url itself. This quote from at top here "signals or energy travel as electromagnetic waves typically on the order of 50%–99% of the speed of light". That statement is correct."

Please note that I did *not* write that the equation solved for drift velocity! I mentioned "charge carrier movement in conductors" and I left it unqualified for a reason. But this is already getting off topic. The main point is that the equation cited in this section absolutely does *not* solve for the "Speed of electromagnetic waves in good conductors".

At the bottom of this section is a very mysterious paragraph. Here are the final two sentences of this paragraph: "As a consequence of Snell's Law and the extremely low speed, electromagnetic waves always enter good conductors in a direction that is normal to the surface, regardless of the angle of incidence. This velocity is the speed with which electromagnetic waves penetrate into the conductor and is not the drift velocity of the conduction electrons."

The above is not related to the topic of this section. It relates only to the penetration of EM energy across a conducting barrier and into the conductor in a direction perpendicular to current flow. That penetration is absolutely related to charge carrier movement in a specific direction and at specific frequencies. This penetration is not related to the "Speed of electromagnetic waves in good conductors". That bottom paragraph should be removed completely, since it does not address the topic of the section which again is "Speed of electromagnetic waves in good conductors".

I don't know if I need to continue here so I won't. If you need more information I'm glad to help, but since you've already erroneously addressed my edit I have no idea if my information is going to be wasted here as well.

Thank you. Hazyj (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazyj (talkcontribs) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I just now noticed there is a very good wiki entry for Skin Effect. It's a fairly simple matter to read this entry and see where all the incorrect information originate. Please look here [2]

Hazyj (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hazyj, I appreciate you contacting me for discussion before making changes to the article. Rather than write a long response, to which you might object to the first sentence, I prefer to write a little and you respond with agreement or disagreement or other comment and we go back and forth, like a conversation. I won't always respond right away because I do have to eat and sleep and do other things, so it might take a few days, but the article has been stable for a while, and if it is wrong it won't matter if it takes a few days to resolve it. Meanwhile, I see that Gah4 has made a comment on the article, and I will respond there to him. First, do you happen to have access to Engineering Electromagnetics by Hayt, either 4th or 5th edition? If not, I can scan the relevant pages and email them to you. Constant314 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick and fair reply Constant314 Please scan Hayt and email to the address below. Thanks. I won't make changes until we agree on them. Please email me here rickyriflestherock@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazyj (talkcontribs) 23:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: Please email me at the above address so we can agree on how the wiki back and forth "Talk" will work. I am at an immense disadvantage not knowing Wikipedia well. Please contact me at the email address provided so I can get up to speed. We can do this very quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazyj (talkcontribs) 23:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

You are doing fine. Just end your comment with four tildes (~~~~) and wiki will automatically append your user name.Constant314 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki can be more friendly here. If I'm signed in my comments are from me. Is wiki paranoid that it may not be me writing from my account? If it is not me that is clicking on the four tildes then what? Wiki thinks people other than me would never click on the four tildes? That's weak logic IMO. Inefficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazyj (talkcontribs) 00:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. I meant to abide by the rules! Sorry Wiki. I am signing now ... Hazyj (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Constant314: I apologize for including the following insult into my original entry above. This statement of mine was not only incorrect, it was way off base: "It would be clear to a good high school physics student that it is incorrect". I make this point now, because it is finally clear to me just how complicated this subject is. It is nowhere near as obvious as I had originally assumed. Hazyj (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No offense taken. It happens all the time. Constant314 (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. Well, first there is the question of what actual speed one wants to discuss, but much of it requires quantum mechanics. Electrons are indistinguishable, and described using Fermi-Dirac statistics. There are some questions that quantum mechanics doesn't alloy you to ask. I was recently editing electron mobility as part of understanding the answer to this question. Among others, the electron mobility article left out holes in metals. In metals with more than one band contributing to conduction, some combination of hole and electron bands, the velocity will be different in each. Gah4 (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I don't want to get into that.Constant314 (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Next complication: the dielectric constant of metals is complex. Specifically, the imaginary component describes the absorption of the wave. Do we consider that, too? Gah4 (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
But OK, back to band structure. For semiconductors with minority carriers that are at the bottom (or top) of the appropriate band, velocity is well defined. For a half full band, different carriers have different velocity. For a full band, the average is zero, while the peak is very large.
Yes, permittivity is complex in metals. I don't think that the Speed of Electricity article needs that detail.Constant314 (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
fermi velocity is a redirect to fermi energy which describes the energy (and velocity) of electrons in metals. From that page, there is a link to table of fermi energies which gives 7eV for copper, and a fermi velocity of 1.57e6 m/s. As the distribution is spherical, most electrons are going close to that speed. That is much higher than the thermal energy of about 0.025eV Gah4 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It just wasn't clear to me whether fermi velocity was RMS over all the electrons or just the conduction electrons. Constant314 (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I always forget how it works, too. Without a lattice, the fermi velocity is the radius of the fermi sphere (or in k space or momentum space). Electrons have velocities within the volume of the fermi sphere, determined by the electron (all of them) density. With a lattice, the sphere distorts into a fermi surface but close to the same radius. With no field, the average is zero. With field, the center of the sphere (or non-sphere surface) moves off the origin, so a few more are going at the fermi velocity one direction, and a few less the other direction. The actual current is a small number of electrons moving very fast. Gah4 (talk) 04:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
So its the outer radius of the fermi ball?Constant314 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
But only electrons within kT of the fermi surface do anything interesting. Others are either full or empty states that stay full or empty. As above, the fermi energy for Cu is 7eV, and kT is about 0.025eV, so it is a thin shell on the surface of the fermi sphere. The complication comes in reduced zone scheme or extended zone scheme, and crystal momentum vs actual momentum. Gah4 (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to be clear and make an important distinction between my comments and those of Gah4. My comments are 100% related to and limited to the section entitled "Speed of Electromagnetic Waves in good conductors". I believe Gah4 is taking on the (much) bigger challenge of the many speeds involved with electricity. Regarding the need for a QM treatment, while I think it would be way more fun, I have to say I'm amazed at the degree to which the Drude model is accurate regarding skin depth, thermal losses, impedance dependency upon frequency, magnetic field density and velocity factor dependency upon insulation.

Regardless, when/if all is said and done here regarding the "speed of E&M waves in a good conductor" it will still be interesting to note that conductors may be able to sustain ALL types and speeds of E&M propagation. If we *were* to approach the problem from a purely QM standpoint we'd be integrating wavefunction(s) over Hilbert space and including every type of E&M propagation imaginable. In the end only those components that superpose constructively would contribute to expectation values of field momentum (directions and magnitudes). All the others, well .... doesn't mean they don't exist. Right;-) That would include those with phase velocities greater than c.

The QM stuff is interesting, but I restrict myself to mostly classical EM.Constant314 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I'm a bit surprised that we've gotten this far regarding E&M propagation within a good conductor without mentioning the effect due to vector potential inside. We know it must exist there regardless of what else doesn't. The case of thin skin depth is a good case in point. For this case our models all claim that current density and magnetic field density will be restricted to a thin layer at the surface. For this case, is the vector potential zero away from this outer "skin"? My first guess is that yes it is. My second is to say that it's dependent upon geometry and symmetry, and needs to be discussed on a case by case basis.

Actually with regard to skin depth, we say that the current density is attenuated rapidly at depth below the skin depth, not that the current density is restricted to one skin depth, even though that is often a useful approximation. Constant314 (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hazyj (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hazyj (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Above Gah4 writes "the dielectric constant of metals is complex. Specifically, the imaginary component describes the absorption of the wave. Do we consider that, too?" Without stating so directly, this is by far the *main* component of dielectric constant considered in the Speed of E&M in good conductors section. But the word "absorption" is only part of the story. Rather, the complex component of permittivity is responsible for the *reactivity* due to carrier motion. That means carriers are being driven and creating their own fields with different phase relationships and directions (relative to the displacement fields which drive the conduction) due to their accelerations. For the case stated in this relevant section, it is this resultant field due to reactivity that is propagating normally at 3.2 m/s. Hazyj (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The complex permittivity is used in the standard equation for the wave number thus
${\displaystyle k=\omega {\sqrt {\epsilon \mu }}=k^{\prime }-jk^{\prime \prime }}$
It is ${\displaystyle k^{\prime \prime }}$  that becomes the attenuation or absorption coefficient.
Adding subscript c for conductor and 0 for vacuum
${\displaystyle k_{0}=\omega {\sqrt {\epsilon _{0}\mu _{0}}}=k_{0}^{\prime }+jk_{0}^{\prime \prime }}$
${\displaystyle k_{c}=\omega {\sqrt {\epsilon _{c}\mu _{c}}}=k_{c}^{\prime }+jk_{c}^{\prime \prime }}$
In vacuum ${\displaystyle k_{0}^{\prime \prime }=0}$
In good conductors, the imaginary part of ${\displaystyle \epsilon _{c}}$  is so much larger than the real part that
${\displaystyle k_{c}^{\prime }\approx k_{c}^{\prime \prime }\approx {\sqrt {{\omega \mu _{0}\sigma _{c}} \over {2}}}\gg k_{0}^{\prime }}$  Constant314 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
note
${\displaystyle \epsilon _{c}=\epsilon _{0}+j{\sigma _{c} \over \omega }}$  Constant314 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The first equation above for wave number is an approximation. The (more) precise form for fields inside a conductor is as follows ...

${\displaystyle k^{2}=\epsilon \mu {{\omega ^{2}} \over {c^{2}}}(1+j{{4\pi \sigma } \over {\omega \epsilon }})}$

[3]

Absorption is better stated as reactivity. As energy is being lost, fields exist due to accelerating charges and changing fields that result from those. To call it just absorption and attentuation disregards the fields which drive the absorption and the fields which result as energy is being lost due to radiation. Charges are "reactive" to these fields and do many things. One of those things involve creating out of phase field production and propagation.

Continuing here on the concept of reactivity vs. absorption/attenuation ...

We know that field energy just inside the surface of a current carrying conductor is by far mostly magnetic. Where did all this magnetic energy come from? "Free" charges are accelerating due to the electric field from displacement current. Energy is lost from that field while it drives charge acceleration: work is being done by the E field here. The accelerating charges create the extremely strong magnetic field component that is most responsible for the E&M energy within the conductor. The magnetic field is changing which creates another component of electric field. The net result is out of phase E&M fields. Meanwhile, energy is lost non-conservatively mostly due to thermal transfer to the lattice. Much of the energy from the E field is being absorbed thermally. If it were not (imagine a good conductor of low density at a very low temperature), all processes are the same but less E field energy is lost to the lattice and can therefore maintain substantial carrier acceleration further from the surface and into the conductor. Absorption and the resultant attenuation of conduction current still exists but less so in this case. Now the processes appear as more reactive than lossy relative to cases of higher temps and denser conductors.

Hazyj (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

A note regarding some confusion resulting from derivations for *thin* skin depth conditions: Jackson considers only this case for his treatment of "Fields at the Surface of and within a Conductor"[4]. He begins by mentioning this treatment is only part of a successive approximation scheme, but he doesn't complete the rest of the scheme in the sense that he doesn't appear to complete the approximation by including terms which effectively model cases where skin depth is large compared to a smaller depth of interest. I believe that results in lack of clarity later.

Just after his perfect conductor treatment at the beginning of this section, and just prior to solving for continuity of tangential H field across the boundary, he states that the case in the "transitional region" is complicated. He is clear that for the transitional region treatment in the case of finite conductivity (i.e. a non-perfect conductor) things are complicated, partially because "there cannot actually be a surface layer of current". He continues to address this case by mentioning that his treatment will involve a successive approximation scheme. What follows is a series of assumptions, again starting with perfect conductor behavior right at the surface and then a statement that "we make use of the fact that the spatial variation of the fields normal to the surface is much more rapid than variations parallel to the surface." He then proceeds to match tangential magnetic field across the boundary. Everything afterwards is related to spatial variations of fields.

Jackson is proceeding as if fields on either side of the boundary have achieved quasi steady state conditions. His treatment is restricted to curls and gradients and other derivatives with respect to spatial dimensions. His only hint at time dependence for this part of the approximation is related to two things:

1. Frequency and wave number indicative of plane wave propagation with sinusoidal variations relative to time and distance. 2. The phase relationship between the E&M fields.

He has left out the derivation of magnetic field strength dependence on time. I believe he has left it out because he is approaching this case as the perfect conductor case. In that case it takes *ZERO* time to establish the resultant E&M field strengths and phase relationships right at the surface. In that case there is no reason to discuss how the fields were established.

I believe this is why Jackson ignores displacement current entirely in this treatment. For his treatment right at the surface he mentions that the non-perfect conductor case is the same as the perfect conductor case. He is assuming that field strengths are instantaneously established by instantaneously moving carriers.

Hazyj (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

wow, I can't believe how many mistakes I made. I'm not even going to bother to fix it. I must have been tired.Constant314 (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems that strike though ignores equations. maybe I'll fix them afterall. Constant314 (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Changed "1. Phase changes along direction of plane wave propagation." to "1. Frequency and wave number indicative of plane wave propagation with sinusoidal variations relative to time and distance." Hazyj (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you double check that equation number 7.68. My 3'rd edition has an equation 7.68 but it doesn't resemble the eqution you posted at all. Constant314 (talk) 05:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I've checked and 7.68 is correct for 2nd Ed. This is first equation under section "7.7 Waves is a Conducting or Dissipative Medium" Hazyj (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

References

"Addendum to Errors in 'Speed of Electricity' entry"

As soon as I match boundary conditions showing that the net energy flow is outside-in *exactly as expected due to depletion of the E-field of displacement current after it has done work on charge carriers* ... I will be adding a detailed entry to the Speed of Electricity talk page. That talk page entry will be my initial staging of the soon-to-follow edit to the "Speed of Electricity" wiki page with or without Balanis' response to me.

I won't make the wiki edit until I'm ready to back it up. If you choose to revert you'll be starting a never ending battle. I will not give up for obvious reasons. My hope is that you're more interested in truth than you are in the preservation of others' reputations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazyj (talkcontribs) 00:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page would be a good place to start.Constant314 (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I've matched boundary conditions and will be editing the talk page first for staging purposes. I'm having trouble getting priorities out of the way however. Hopefully not too much longer. Hazyj (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification about the relation between force, charge, and field

The title says it all. Sdc870 (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Joy of Science

Constant314, since no one has yet supported deletion, you have the option of withdrawing your nomination (see WP:WDAFD). RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That is exactly what I want to do. Constant314 (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you do the rest of the close? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to try for fear of screwing things up. Constant314 (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's not really that hard. Just follow one instruction at a time. You can skip the first instruction ("Remove the {{AfDh}}/{{AfDb}}/{{Closing}} tags from the page" because there aren't any. If anything goes wrong, I can fix it (as I did with the mistake I just made!). RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that first instruction had me intimidated. I'll see what I can do.Constant314 (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Done, I think. Nothing looks broken. Thanks for the help. Constant314 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Almost perfect - the only thing you missed was providing values for PAGE_NAME and DATE in {{Old AfD multi}}. I did that for you. Good job! RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

 Hello, Constant314. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

New Noise Figure page to coherently address the two different noise-figure definitions, one from Friss, and the other from IEEE

Thanks for your "talk" response to me regarding the Noise Figure article I posted. Please take a look at the talk section I added to the Noise Figure page. I hope you can go thru my list of things we should be able to agree on. I will look forward to your response.

--JohnM7190 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

phis

Your edit has φ1, φ1, and φ1? SpinningSpark 21:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Constant314 (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Constant314. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! – Juliancolton | Talk 21:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Constant314 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Check what you are doing

Did you even see what you reverted here? [19] Hi. Thanks for contacting me. Of course I looked at it and considered for 24 hours whether it was SPAM. I consider that it is. But it is not worth a edit war, so I won't be reverting again. Constant314 (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked again. That website is definitely SPAM. Over 3/4 of the screen space is dedicated to selling product.Constant314 (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I have stalked

He's a girl named "ana" but he's using fake identity to stalk me here and my friends on other wikipedia, now my friend has locked globally because thats "annoying attention seeker".

VioletSky575 (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you are having a problem. You need to contact an Admin such as User talk:Spinningspark. Constant314 (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

3M's products and patents

Hello! Thanks again for your willingness to review requests for the 3M page. I've submitted a request to update the page with an overview of the company's products and patents, if you have a moment to take a look. Thanks! CB at 3M (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I will check it.Constant314 (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello again! I just wanted to make sure you saw my response here. Thanks! CB at 3M (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Did you see my comment on your talk page?Constant314 (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry! Thanks for replying on my talk page. I will see if I can find another editor to review the request. Thanks! CB at 3M (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Revert on United Nations Interpretation Service

Hi, Would you mind explaining your reasoning behind this revert? You undid my edit, which was itself a reversion of unexplained content removal. I struggle to see what led you to believe that I was vandalising the page. Thanks! — Blablubbs (talkcontribs) 14:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Greetings. I've been using Wikiloop for reviewing and the edit summary was its default summary. I'll be doing a better job on edit summaries in the future. I reverted that particular edit because it appeared inflammatory. However, if you feel that it is not, just go ahead and revert my revert. Constant314 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the quick response. I have gone ahead and reinstated the original version for the time being, since it appears to be well-sourced, has been there since at least 2007 and no reason was given for the original removal of the content. Why do you consider it to be inflammatory? Best, — Blablubbs (talkcontribs) 14:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
It is partly because of the way Wililoop presents the edit. It sounded like editorializing. If it was well sourced, then it was my mistake. Constant314 (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi Constant314,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.

Short description and input impedance

Creating a redirect and adding the short description there might achieve what you want to do (but I am only guessing as I don't actually know what that was all about!). SpinningSpark 16:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I noticed that ‎Pbsouthwood changed the See Also links to annotated links on the Electrical impedance article. The annotated link appears to pull in the short description. However, the short description for Transmission line impedance is “Signal phenomenon” which is the short description for the page Reflections of signals on conducting lines. My intent was to have a better short description show up for Transmission line impedance, but it continued to pull up the short description at the top of the page. Constant314 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, I think transcluding short descriptions into see also sections is a terrible idea and I usually revert that when I see it on an article I care about. Firstly, as you are discovering, short descriptions are often terrible. Further, they can change without the editors of the article on which they are transcluded noticing as transclusion changes don't trigger a watchlist entry. And finally, see also descriptions need to be relevant to the article they are added to. Frequently, the reason something is in see also is self-evident and no description is needed. Where it is necessary to explain why it is there, the reason may be something other than what is in the short description. My opinion is that this whole system is yet more useless code clutter in articles. Much easier just to write what you wanted it to say directly. SpinningSpark 18:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
It does sometimes seem that churn is a substitute for progress. Constant314 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your wrong. Just a hint, there's no such thing as dielectic. You may mean to say dialect, its primative and reworked of others hard work. Please remove your applied mechanic otherwise I will have you prosecuted. I know what you intend to do and it's After the death of Christ not DC and information collected has been passed to the authorities that links the whole organization of the revoltation of the time. Zap! Good luck Ayresnick93 (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Please join the discussion regarding your reversion

Hi, per your request I added a section to the talk page over here so we can discuss your reversion and hopefully reach a version of text that we are both happy with, please follow up on the talk page, thank you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dielectric_loss#Describing_the_difference_between_the_two_definitions_of_Loss_Tangent  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debeo Morium (talkcontribs) 00:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Responded to on the article talk page.Constant314 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
86   Microwave cavity (talk) Add sources
28   Diffused junction transistor (talk) Add sources
12   Miksa Déri (talk) Add sources
60   National Physical Laboratory of India (talk) Add sources
134   Litz wire (talk) Add sources
549   AC power (talk) Add sources
160   Toroidal inductors and transformers (talk) Cleanup
123   Telegrapher's equations (talk) Cleanup
6   Energy-shaping control (talk) Cleanup
240   Black conservatism (talk) Expand
397   Top 100 Contractors of the U.S. federal government (talk) Expand
15   Collider Detector at Fermilab (talk) Expand
59   Cultural influence of Star Trek (talk) Unencyclopaedic
203   Acoustic impedance (talk) Unencyclopaedic
130   Transrapid (talk) Unencyclopaedic
221   Charge carrier (talk) Merge
15   Effective permittivity and permeability (talk) Merge
155   DBZ (meteorology) (talk) Merge
379   Ferrite bead (talk) Wikify
36   World Federalism (talk) Wikify
675   School bullying (talk) Wikify
7   Spin welding of polymers (talk) Orphan
5   Phototool (talk) Orphan
8   Nanophotonic resonator (talk) Orphan
263   Semantic Scholar (talk) Stub
24   A 3 Minute Hug (talk) Stub
32   IINA (talk) Stub
106   Darren Henry (talk) Stub
25   Proton conductor (talk) Stub
49   5-Series class : Fast Attack Craft (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a rollback on Diode

While I know this was a good faith edit, how is it factually incorrect? Two diodes back form a transistor, as shown in Transistor diode model. Wording might've been a little weird though, I admit. Unknown-Tree (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello. The edit said "Two diodes can be connected back to back to form a transistor." You can attach two diodes together, but you will not get a transistor. You will just get two diodes. In a transistor, the current in one junction controls the current in the other junction. With two diodes, the current in one diode will have no effect on the current in the other diode. Constant314 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
A Bipolar Junction Transistor (BJT) is formed of three regions, NPN or PNP (depending on the transistor). Diodes are either NP or PN (depending on orientation). Connecting the diodes together back to back forms either NPPN or a PNNP region, and since adjacent regions are the same, they are NPN or PNP, which is exactly what a BJT is. Unknown-Tree (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
In an NPN, the two junctions influence each other. In two diodes they do not. You will never get gain out of two diodes connected together, but you can get gain out of the transistor. Constant314 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm still uncertain what you're talking about; can you please elaborate more or cite a source about "In an NPN, the two junctions influence each other." Unknown-Tree (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
In the transistor, the voltage across the base-emitter junction (or equivalently, the current through the base-emitter junction) controls the current through the base-collector junction. There is no equivalent behavior in two connected diodes. Constant314 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
In two diodes (assuming NPN), if less current flows in the base-emitter junction, then less current flows in the base-collector junction, and vice versa. Unknown-Tree (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
You are completely missing the transistor action. In a typical transistor circuit, the base-collector junction is reversed biased, but current goes through the junction anyway. If you replace that with two diodes, there will be essentially no current in the reverse biased junction.Constant314 (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No diode is perfect; with enough current, reverse biasing will happen. It is mentioned in Transistor diode model that more base biasing is required. Unknown-Tree (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Try it. Take a simple transistor amplifier and measure its gain and operating currents and then replace it with back to back diodes. It won't be the same.Constant314 (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
I never said it would be the same, I even said that more base biasing is required; I should've written that in the Wikipedia article, that's a mistake on my part. Unknown-Tree (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I = dQ/dt

If you think I = Q/t, then you should go back to school immediately. Hahahahahaha! Idiots rule Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koitus~nlwiki (talkcontribs)

Hello. It is about the units. The units of current is the units of charge divided by time. It gets this same treatment as all articles. Constant314 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

HI Constant314,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Signature test

My sig Constant314 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

 Hi Constant314! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, .mw-parser-output .inline-quote-talk{font-family:Georgia,"DejaVu Serif",serif;color:#008560;quotes:none}.mw-parser-output .inline-quote-talk-italic{font-family:inherit;font-style:italic}.mw-parser-output .inline-quote-talk-marks{quotes:"\"""\""}LaTeX funny, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review

Dear editors, developers and friends:

Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.

Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.

Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!

María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)